The Charity Commission has today issued a press release on its engagement with the Church of England over “the urgent need to improve its safeguarding arrangements”, following publication of the Makin Review and ahead of key debates at the Church’s General Synod:
“In February, the Synod is due to consider proposals and legislation related to safeguarding including options for new structures, in response to various independent reports including the Makin Review. While the Commission does not regulate the General Synod itself – which is not a charity – decisions the Synod makes impact on charities within the Church.
The Commission renewed its engagement with Church authorities following the publication of the Makin Review – an independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth QC.
A meeting was held between senior representatives of the Commission and the National Church Institutions, including the Archbishop of York, earlier this month.
Following this, the Commission is writing to all members of the General Synod who are also trustees of Church charities to draw attention to their legal duties, specifically their duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. This includes ensuring that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose, and that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up.
The Commission’s letter encourages trustees on the Synod to consider the extent to which any proposals ‘will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe.’
The Commission will continue its regulatory engagement to ensure trustees of Church charities are able to fulfil their duties.
David Holdsworth, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, said:
‘The Makin Review underlined concerns about the sufficiency of changes made by the Church of England in implementing improvements to safeguarding.
The Commission has been in active dialogue with national Church bodies to monitor their response to the Makin Review. As part of that engagement, we have made clear that safeguarding related matters to be considered at the forthcoming General Synod must fully address any structures or processes which may prevent trustees of charities within the Church from fulfilling their legal safeguarding duties.
We have made clear the time for review has passed, and now is the time for action. We have also made clear our regulatory expectations that the necessary changes must be implemented as soon as possible, with the Church using its legal powers if needed to expedite the action required’.”
The Commission has also sent a Letter to General Synod members who are also trustees of Church of England charities which reminds them that, though the Commission
“has no regulatory jurisdiction over the General Synod or its members. However, the Charity Commission is the regulator of the Church charities which must comply with the Measures, Regulations and safeguarding codes that the Synod passes/approves”
and notes that
“All charity trustees have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. Trustees should ensure that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose and enable them to effectively discharge their duties in relation to safeguarding. This includes being satisfied that, where concerns are raised, appropriate action is taken in a timely manner and processes are in place so that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up.”
Can anyone clarify the legal duties of a member of synod?
Always welcome when the Commission reminds trustees of their duties as trustees. It seems strange that they’re addressing them in their capacity as members of a legislature, though: surely more logical to write to the whole synod?
Self-evidently, anyone legislating for the Church at the moment needs to be thinking about safeguarding – but in that capacity, not because they happen to be trustees. I would have thought members of synod are required to put from their minds any duties they owe elsewhere, and decide exclusively for the good of the Church as such.
If that’s right, then para. 10 is wrong-headed:
“It is therefore important that, as a trustee of a Church charity attending the General Synod in February 2025, you remain aware of your legal trustee duties during debate and voting on relevant Synod business such that you are satisfied the changes will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe.”
Maybe it’s my head that’s wrong?
Since all General Synod members (save, possibly, with a very few exceptions) will be charity trustees, particularly as members ex-officio of their PCC or, for bishops, their DBF, this is a clever way of telling GS members, circumventing the acknowledged fact that the Synod – a legislative body, not a charity – is not a body over which the Commission has any regulatory jurisdiction, that the time for further debate and delay is over and that now is the time for action. The letter has presumably been sent to those GS members whose PCC is a registered charity, with the names of their members/trustees being on a public record – not at present a requirement for all PCCs – but all PCC members, whether the PCC is registered or not, are charity trustees.
In referring, in its statement, to the ability of the Synod to use “its legal powers if needed to expedite the action required” the Chief Executive no doubt has in mind that the Synod can take all stages of a Measure in one group of sessions, as it did in September 2020 for the General Synod (Remote Meetings) Measure 2020 and, in February 2020, for the Channel Islands Measure 2020. So it would appear that the Charity Commission is challenging the Synod to pass all stages of the requisite Measure to secure the necessary independence of safeguarding in the July 2025 group of sessions. Delays on the basis of claimed lack of resources (see the ‘Update from the Legislative Reform Committee, GS 1405) should not be tolerated.
I understand the politics, and the deft footwork. Im trying to understand if it’s legally legit: does a member of Synod, while voting as such, have a duty to further the trusts of a charity that is legally separate?
(To be clear I’m not arguing the outcome sought is wrong; just wondering if it’s really proper for the Commission to seek it in this way.)